See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340892401

Rainfall Interception Based on Indirect Methods: A Case Study in Temperate

Forests in Oaxaca, Mexico

Article  in  JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · April 2020

DOI: 10.1111/1752-1688.12844

CITATIONS READS

0 38

2 authors:

Tania Fernandez Irma Trejo

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
15 PUBLICATIONS   668 CITATIONS    49 PUBLICATIONS   1,838 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Urban Ecology in Mexico City View project

Primer registro de Pinus Pinceana (Pinaceae) para Tamaulipas: aspectos ecológicos y estructurales View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Irma Trejo on 09 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

Rainfall Interception Based on Indirect Methods: A Case Study in Temperate Forests in

Oaxaca, Mexico

Tania Fernandez and Irma Trejo

Research Impact Statement: Quantification of rainfall interception (RI) is important in hydrologic studies.
The proposed indirect method to measure RI is easy to reproduce in different ecosystems.

ABSTRACT: Rainfall interception represents the amount of water trapped in natural cover that is not drained
directly to the ground. Intercepted rainfall may evaporate after a rain event, making it one of the main drivers
of water balance and hydrologic regionalization. This process can be affected by factors such as climate, altitude,
vegetation type, and topography. Here is a simple method of calculating rainfall interception in temperate for-
ests using in Santa Maria Yavesia, Oaxaca, and Mexico as an illustrative study area. We used two rain gauges
to measure net precipitation (Np) under the canopy at each study site and one gauge outside the canopy to
obtain gross precipitation (Gp). Throughfall (Th) was indirectly measured using hemispherical photographs.
Rainfall interception was obtained through a combination Th and Gp and Np. The mean rainfall interception
was 50.6% in the Abies forests, 23%–40% in the coniferous-mixed forests, and 27.4% in the broad-leaved forests.
We classified rainfall events by intensity to determine the effect of canopy structure and precipitation and found
that 75% of the events were weak events, 24% were moderate events, and 1% were strong events. In addition,
we found that rainfall interception was lower when the intensity of precipitation was higher. Our method can
be replicated in different ecosystems worldwide as a tool for assessing the influence of rainfall interception in
terms of ecological services.

(KEYWORDS: rainfall interception; throughfall; gross precipitation; net precipitation; rain gauge; canopy
structure.)

INTRODUCTION other system with plant cover (Levia et al. 2011).

Precipitation is one the most important hydrologi-
cal processes because it serves as the primary supply
of water in a basin. During the hydrologic cycle, some
rainfall is trapped by the forest canopy, causing a
redistribution of the water, much of which is lost by
evaporation (Link et al. 2004). Rainfall interception is
defined as the quantity of water that is retained by
the canopy in leaves, branches or any other part of
the plant canopy in forests, agricultural fields or any
Rainfall interception results in canopy water storage,
and some of the water falls through the branches and
leaves, reaching the ground, while some of this water
returns to the cycle through evaporation, resulting in
a redistribution of water in space (Gerrits et al.
2010). The amount of water retained through plant
interception depends on the plant cover area, foliage
density, season, intensity, and duration of rainfall
(Pypker et al. 2005). For instance, the higher the
plant cover, the greater the volume of intercepted
rainfall and the lower the runoff (Rutter et al. 1971).

Paper No. JAWRA-18-0126-P of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA). Received August 22, 2018; accepted
March 19, 2020. © 2020 American Water Resources Association. Discussions are open until six months from issue publication.
Postgraduate in Geography (Fern
andez), and Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geography (Trejo), National Autonomous
University of Mexico, Mexico City, MEX (Correspondence to Fern
andez: tania.fdzv@gmail.com).
Citation: Fern

andez, T. and I., Trejo. 2020. "Rainfall Interception Based on Indirect Methods: A Case Study in Temperate Forests in
Oaxaca, Mexico." Journal of the American Water Resources Association 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12844.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 1 JAWRA

 FERNANDEZ

AND
Rainfall interception, particularly by forest cano-
pies, is one of the principal components of the hydro-
logic cycle (Limousin et al. 2008). Previous studies
have shown that rainfall interception varies from
10% to 50% of gross precipitation (Gp) (Zhang et al.
1999; Roth et al. 2007; Levia et al. 2011; Flores Ayala
et al. 2016) (see Appendix). Compared to other plant
ecosystems, forests have higher rainfall interception
(Calder 1998). Interception by forest canopies is
important because it reduces the risk of landslides
and prevents soil softening (Morgan 2009). However,
the amount of rainfall that is intercepted can be
affected by forest type, the time of the year when
rainfall interception is measured, and the methods
used to evaluate rainfall interception (Cant
u and
Gonza
lez Rodr
ıguez 2002).
Various methods have been developed to estimate
the quantity of intercepted rainfall. The most com-
mon models are based on models proposed by Rutter
et al. (1971), Gash (1979), and Gash et al. (1995),
which use parameters such as canopy storage capac-
ity, free throughfall (Th), a flow coefficient, and water
storage capacity in trunks and calculate rainfall coef-
ficients moving through the tree bark. Other studies
consider information regarding net precipitation (Np)
and Gp, cortical flow, trunk and canopy evaporation,
infiltration, and Th, which can be obtained using
direct or indirect methods (Llorens et al. 1997). As
these parameters are usually difficult to measure,
values obtained from the literature are often used to
calculate rainfall interception (Zhang et al. 1999; Mir-
alles et al. 2010). Literature derived values are not
reliable especially when the hydrometeorological con-
ditions at the site vary widely from conditions where
the literature measurements were made (Llorens and
Gallart 2000).
In this study, we aim to estimate rainfall intercep-
tion with indirect methods that estimate canopy
openness (Co) and free throughfall (Th) and direct
methods with rain gauges that measure net precipita-
tion (Np) and gross precipitation (Gp). We determined
Co using hemispherical photographs because it is an
easy, precise, fast, and noninvasive method (Br
eda
2003) that relies on free software to perform the
required photograph classification (Rich 1990;
Jarcuska et al. 2010). Precipitation events were clas-
sified according to their intensities based on the total
rainfall quantity and the duration of each event
(Moncho et al. 2009). Equipment to measure cortical
flow, evaporation rate, and other necessary parame-
ters required by some interception models is gener-
ally not available in routine hydrological studies
(Gash et al. 1995). A simplified indirect method of Th
measurement that is inexpensive and easy to repro-
duce is therefore proposed here.
JAWRA
TREJO
The proposed method allows for the assessment of
several factors in the rainfall interception process,
such as the differences between Gp and Np, Co with
different forest types and the relationship between
the rainfall interception process and intensity. The
proposed method has economic and logistic advan-
tages and is particularly suited for use in areas with
limited fiscal resources in order to help manage water
and other natural resources.
METHODS
Study Area
Santa Mar
ıa Yaves
ıa in Oaxaca, Mexico, is part of
the Ixtl

an District in the North Mountain Range or
Sierra Jua
rez and is located from 17°080 N to 17°160 N
and 96°210 W to 96°280 W (INEGI 2005) (Figure 1).
Santa Mar
ıa Yaves
ıa has a total area of 6,349 ha.
Most of this area (97%) is conifer and broad-leaved
temperate forests, and only 2% of the area is used for
agriculture. Human settlement accounts for only 1%
of the total area, with a population of 448 inhabitants
(INEGI 2010). The altitude ranges from 1,900 to
3,400 m a.s.l. (meters above sea level), and the aver-
age annual temperature ranges from 8.9°C in the
highest altitude area and 15.9°C in the lowest alti-
tude area. The hottest months are April and May,
the wettest period is from May to September, and the
coldest months are November, December and Jan-
uary (INEGI 2005). Table 1 shows the dominant for-
est species per sample site.
Precipitation and Temperature Patterns in the Study
Area
Information from two meteorological stations
equipped with Vantage Pro sensors (Davis Instru-
ments Inc) were reviewed as part of this study. The
instruments have an accuracy of () 0.05°C for out-
side temperatures and () >4% or 1 tip for daily rain-
fall (DAVIS Instruments 2005). The stations are
located at 3,100 and 2,000 m a. s. l. and show the
influence of relief on precipitation patterns, with a
difference of 1,100 m between the high part of the
study area and the lowest part (where the town of
Santa Mar
ıa Yaves
ıa is located). Data from January
2007 to December 2013 were analyzed for annual and
monthly precipitation, and minimum and maximum
monthly temperatures served as the reference dataset
(Figure 1).
2 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 RAINFALL INTERCEPTION BASED ON INDIRECT METHODS: A CASE STUDY IN TEMPERATE FORESTS IN OAXACA, MEXICO

FIGURE 1. Land use, weather stations, and sampling sites.

TABLE 1. Dominant species per sample site.

Davis rain gauges were used at the sample sites in
Sample Altitude, accordance with (WMO) standards (Jarraud 2008).
site m a.s.l. Forest type Dominant species Rain gauges were installed over a 1.1-m-tall base and
1 3,185 Coniferous Abies hickelii, Pinus
placed within wire filter meshes to prevent dust, pol-
forest ayacahuite, P. hartwegii len, insects, or leaf litter from entering. The gauges
2 3,006 Mixed forest P. ayacahuite, P. were 16.5 cm in diameter by 25 cm in height and
montezumae, P. Abies were fitted with an event recorder (HOBO). Each
hickelii, Quercus pulse of the gauge was equivalent to 0.25 mm of rain,
ocoteifolia, Q. laurina
3 2,339 Mixed forest P. pseudostrobus var.
and the pulse reader recorded information about each
apulcensis, P. lawsonii, Q. pulse of precipitation with its associated date and
crassifolia, Q. acutifolia time, as well as the ambient temperature each hour.
4 2,334 Broadleaved Q.crassifolia, Q. laeta, Q. Information was stored in the instrument’s internal
forests castanea, P. lawsonii memory and downloaded for further analyses. A one-
way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to
test for differences between the rain gauges below
Precipitation Data from Sample Sites the forest canopy to test for potential variation in the
sites. All analyses were performed with the statistical
Four sampling sites with different altitudes and software STATA v.12 (StataCorp 2011).
vegetation types were selected, and three rain gauges
were installed at each site. One rain gauge was
located outside the forest canopy to measure Gp, and Canopy Openness
the other two were located under the forest canopy to
measure Np. Vegetation at each site included conifer Canopy structure was defined as the quantity and
forests and a variety of mixed forests (see Table 1 organization of aboveground plant material, and the
and Figure 1). Data were collected from May 2012 to portion of the canopy that interfaces with radiant flux
November 2013 and were subjected to requisite qual- density, air temperature, soil temperature, air vapor
ity control and quality assurance checks. Erroneous pressure, leaf temperature, soil heat storage, wind
readings from the gauges were removed from further speed, rainfall interception, and leaf wetness duration
analyses. Periods of time when the devices were (Nobel and Forseth 1993). The two methods to mea-
unexpectedly unplugged or clogged were also noted. sure Co are direct and indirect: the direct method

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 3 JAWRA

 FERNANDEZ

AND
considers the area, shape, angle, position, sheet size,
weight, etc. Some of these direct methods are inva-
sive and include cutting branches, stems, and leaves,
which is often difficult to perform. Indirect methods
usually use hemispherical photography, which
employs a camera with a wide-angle lens to obtain a
view from below the canopy looking upward. Inter-
pretation of these data requires special software and
algorithms (Norman and Campbell 1989a, b).
Forest canopy structure was described here using
hemispherical photographs with a Canon EOS
Rebel digital camera equipped with a Sigma wide-
angle lens (“fish-eye”). This kind of lens provides a
panoramic view (180°) that allows an estimation of
Co, light penetration through the canopy, percent-
age of clear sky and other parameters using special
software for the interpretation (Rich 1990; Chi-
anucci and Cutini 2012). Eight hemispherical pho-
tographs were taken at a height of 1.20 m
aboveground, with the camera always oriented
toward the north. The photographs were taken at
the sample sites where rain gauges were located
under the forest canopy. Hemispherical photographs
from August 2012 were used in this study. August
is a rainy period, and during this period, there is a
peak in temperate forest growth, providing the most
representative time period for capturing forest cano-
pies (Jeong et al. 2011). Photographs were analyzed
using the free software Gap Light Analyzer, which
provides specialized routines for extracting forest
canopy structure and gap light transmission from
hemispherical photos (Frazer et al. 1999; Promis
and Cruz 2009) (Figure 2).
Throughfall and Rainfall Interception
Rainfall interception was calculated based on Gp,
Np, and Th (Flores Ayala et al. 2016). Gp is defined as
the water that reaches the soil surface, which is usu-
ally measured in open areas that are free of any
obstacles (Guevara-Escobar et al. 2007). Np, also
FIGURE 2. Hemispheric photography example. Left original photograph, right interpreted photograph.
JAWRA
TREJO
known as total forest precipitation, is the water that
reaches the soil through runoff from leaves, branches
and trunks, as well as the rainfall that penetrates
through gaps in the canopy (L
opez 2002). Gap frac-
tion (Gf) is the probability (fraction) of no interception
of light by the foliage (Welles and Cohen 1996). The
gap fraction considers a random distribution of leaves
within the foliage, and the flux of light through the
canopy depends on the direction of the zenith and
azimuth angles. Co is the number of pixels considered
as the open sky in contrast to the unopen sky on the
hemispherical image (Welles and Cohen 1996; Frazer
et al. 1999). Th is defined as the quantity of precipita-
tion that penetrates through gaps in the canopy and
moves through tree crowns to the forest floor (Daw-
son and Simonin 2011; Trinh and Chui 2013) and
was obtained from hemispherical photographs (Llo-
rens and Gallart 2000; L
opez 2002; Link et al. 2004)
T can be defined as the following:
Th ¼ Gf þ Co ; ð1Þ
where Th = throughfall, Gf = gap fraction and
Co = canopy openness.
In this study, rainfall interception (RI) was evalu-
ated as the difference between Gp and Np and Th
(L
opez 2002; Flores Ayala et al. 2016). The equa-
tion used for this is per event is as follows:
RI ¼ G p  N p  T h ; ð2Þ
where RI = rainfall interception, Gp = gross precipita-
tion, Np = net precipitation and Th = throughfall.
Precipitation Intensity
Precipitation intensity (PI) is measured in rainfall
interception analyses to assess the amount of water
that penetrates a forest canopy over a period of time.
This depends mainly on two factors: Co and intensity
of the event (Agassi and Levy 1991). The PI is the
4 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 RAINFALL INTERCEPTION BASED ON INDIRECT
quantity of Gp that falls on a site per time unit (t)
(Moncho et al. 2009):
Gp
PIðtÞ ¼ ; ð3Þ
t ure 3). Figure 4a and 4b show average monthly tem-
where PI = precipitation intensity, Gp = maximum
precipitation, t = time (24 h).
In this study, PI was reclassified in accordance
with the Spanish Federal Meteorological Agency
(AMET) guidelines, which classify intensity classes
(in mm/24 h) as weak (0.1–2), moderate (2.1–1.5),
strong (15.1–30), very strong (30.1–60), and torrential
(>60) (Monjo 2010). A linear regression test was per-
formed to determine whether greater PI resulted in
less rainfall interception. All statistical analyses were
performed using the statistical program STATA ver-
sion 12 (StataCorp 2011). The study hypothesizes a
correlation between rainfall interception and inten-
sity. To test this hypothesis, four regression equa-
tions were developed per site with Gp, net
temperature (Nt), and rain gauge (Np) as variables.
RESULTS
Precipitation and Temperature Patterns in the Study Area
The description of the precipitation and temperature
patterns in the study area is important as a reference
of these parameters to compare the results with those
at rain gauge sites (which is presented in the next sec-
tion). It was found that the altitude directly affects pre-
cipitation and temperature patterns in the study area.
The highest part of the basin showed an average
annual rainfall of 1,430 mm for 2007–2013, whereas
the lower part of the basin had an average annual rain-
fall of 833 mm in the same period. The rainiest year
was 2010 at both stations, with 1,981 mm in the high
elevation area and 1,220 mm in the lower elevation
area. The driest year in both parts of the basin was
2012, with 976 mm of rainfall in the highest area and
806 mm of rainfall in the lower area (Figure 3). The
rainy season was clearly defined from May to October.
The rainiest months were from June to September,
showing differences of up to 86 mm in the higher part
of the area and 56 mm in the lower part of the area,
with September being the month with the highest rain-
fall in 2013 (see Figure 4a, 4b).
The mean maximum and minimum temperatures
at the high part of the study area were 9.4°C and
8.4°C, respectively. In the lower parts of the study
area, the mean maximum and minimum tempera-
tures were 16.4°C and 15.1°C, respectively. It is
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
METHODS: A CASE STUDY IN TEMPERATE FORESTS IN OAXACA, MEXICO
important to note that precipitation clearly decreased
in 2012 in the high elevation area and in 2013 in the
lower elevation area compared with the amount of
precipitation in years 2007, 2008, and 2009 (Fig-
perature and precipitation data during 2013 at
higher elevation and lower elevation sites. These data
were used as a reference between the weather station
located in the study area and data obtained from rain
gauges at the sample sites.
Gross and Net Precipitation at the Sample Sites
Rainfall (with a minimum of 0.25 mm of rain) was
noted for 159 days at Site 1, 168 days at Site 2,
153 days at Site 3, and 123 days at Site 4 during
May 2012–November 2013.
As expected, Gp was greater than Np at all the
sites, but differences between sites were likely due to
the altitude and type of forest (Figure 5). Differences
were found in Np from May 2012 to November 2013
between sites due to heterogeneous canopy cover
across sites, comparing annual precipitation from
rain gauges located inside the canopy. Site 1 showed
16% Np at both sites inside the canopy. Site 2 showed
clear differences between the Np of the two rain
gauges at 37% and 57% rainfall interception. Site 3,
also with mixed forest like Site 2, presented more
similarities between the two rain gauges located
within the canopy (18% and 26%). In contrast, Site 4
showed relatively more variation in Np inside the
canopy (27% and 52%). To have a reference for Gp in
the study area during 2013, monthly data from the
nearest meteorological station to each site were com-
pared to those obtained from rain gauges located out-
side the forest (Figure 5).
An ANOVA was carried out to identify the differ-
ences between the two rain gauges located below the
forest canopy using the data collected on Np from May
2012 to November 2013, and the data were significant
at three sites. At Site 1, N = 477 (F = 6.87, p = 0.0011);
at Site 2, N = 504 (F = 7.29, p = 0.0008); at Site 3,
N = 462 (F = 1.50, p = 0.2483); and at Site 4, N = 369
(F = 6.93, p = 0.0011). Differences in the F value con-
firm the differences between both rain gauges located
below the forest canopy, confirming that although there
are similar plant characteristics at each site where
there are rain gauges, there are differences between the
gauges since the canopy is not homogeneous.
Canopy Openness and Throughfall
We found that Co differed between the forest sites,
as observed from the hemispherical photographs,
5 JAWRA
 FERNANDEZ

AND TREJO

FIGURE 3. Annual precipitation for 2007–2013 (mm/year) from meteorological stations. Station 1: 3,100 m a.s.l.; Station 2: 2,000 m a.s.l.

FIGURE 4. (a) Temperature and precipitation in 2013 in the high part of the study area. Precip = monthly precipitation; TMax = maximum
monthly temperature in °C; TMin = minimum monthly temperature in °C. (b) Temperature and precipitation in 2013 in the low part of the
study area. Precip = monthly precipitation; Max = maximum monthly temperature in °C; Min = minimum monthly temperature in °C.

resulting in a high variability in Th across sites (Fig-
ure 6). At Site 1, the Th ranged from 76% to 38% (the
highest values of any of the sites). This site is an
Abies forest, where the branches are open and
spaced, with acicular leaves that allow more holes in
the canopy. Site 2 also showed high Th, ranging from
35% to 54%. This site is composed of mixed forests
with acicular and broad leaves (oaks) and an abun-
dance of epiphytes (Bromeliaceae). The vegetation at
Site 3 is similar to that at Site 2, which explains why
we found similar Th, with values ranging from 24%
to 27%. Finally, Th at Site 4, which is dominated by
oaks, ranged from 28% to 33% (Figure 6).
Rainfall Interception
High variability was also noted across sites in
terms of rainfall interception, which was mainly
associated with losses due to Th, vegetation, location,
and precipitation. The mean values were approxi-
mately 53.17% for Site 1 (Abies forest), 40.1% for Site
2 (mixed forest), 24.09% for Site 3 (mixed forest), and
27.5% for Site 4 (mainly broad-leaved forest). Site 1
had the highest rainfall interception loss as well as
the most Th (Figure 7).
Rainfall Interception vs. Intensity
A positive linear correlation was noted between
rainfall interception and PI for all sites; that is,
higher intensity resulted in less interception (Fig-
ure 8). The results for Sites 1, 2, and 4 show that the
model explaining the interception was adequate
because the coefficient of determination, R2, was rea-
sonably high and equal to 0.86, 0.78, and 0.78,
respectively, implying that most of the variability in

JAWRA 6 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

 RAINFALL INTERCEPTION BASED ON INDIRECT METHODS: A CASE STUDY IN TEMPERATE FORESTS IN OAXACA, MEXICO

FIGURE 5. Gp and Np and reference zone precipitation (mm/month for 2013). Gp corresponds to the rain gauge located outside the forest
canopy, Np corresponds to the two rain gauges located inside the forest canopy, and the reference precipitation corresponds to the nearest
meteorological station to each site.

FIGURE 6. Th percentage per site. Each bar represents values from the two rain gauges located at each forest site.

the model was explained by the selected variables. where there were 75% weak events, 24% moderate
All model coefficients were statistically significant at events, and 1% strong events.
a 95% confidence level (i.e., at a ≤ 0.05) (see Table 2).
According to the AMET PI classification range,
data from the reference stations show the following
results: Station 1 indicated 78% weak events, 20% SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
moderate events, and 2% strong events. Station 2
indicated 81% weak events, 18% moderate events,
and 1% strong events, providing a reference for rain- Precipitation in the study area was mainly
fall patterns in this area. Very strong or torrential explained by geographical location and altitude
events were not noted during the study period. Simi- differences. In comparison to the lower part of the
lar results were also recorded at the sample sites study area the higher part, showed differences in

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 7 JAWRA

 FERNANDEZ

AND TREJO

FIGURE 7. Rainfall interception per site. Canopy 1 and Canopy 2 correspond to the two rain gauges located inside the forest.

FIGURE 8. Rainfall interception vs. intensity at each site.

precipitation and temperature by approximately comparison to other years, 2012 and 2013, when the
132 mm in monthly rain and 4.9°C in the warmest rain gauges were in operation at the sample sites,
month. However, it should be noted that in were atypical years in terms of precipitation

JAWRA 8 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

 RAINFALL INTERCEPTION BASED ON INDIRECT
TABLE 2. OLS1 analysis results by site.
Site Coefficient V1 (SE) Coefficient V2 (SE)
Site 1 36.553 (0.728) 0.440
Site 2 20.626 (0.621) 0.403
Site 3 3.726 (0.519) 0.457
Site 4 7.157 (0.318) 0.260
Note: V1, Rain gauge; V2, gross precipitation; V3, net temperature.
1
Ordinary least squares regression (OLS), commonly named linear regression.
(Figure 2). The intensity of the events (mm/24 h)
indicated that 80% of the events were weak, and very
strong and torrential events were extremely rare.
The differences in Co were mainly attributed to the
differences in tree species at each site, which in turn
was influenced by leaf type, as well as the epiphytes
located on the trunks (Sites 2, 3, and 4). Site 1 was
the most open site, given that it is dominated by
Abies, whose physiognomic structure differs from that
of other species in the area. This type of tree has
long, thin branches, which is likely why the canopy is
so open. All sites had less Np than Gp, allowing us to
verify that the forest canopy reduces the amount of
precipitation hitting the surface. This information
may be useful for other types of studies to evaluate
runoff, soil protection, landslides, and land use
change.
In this study, the average rainfall interception for
the Abies forest was 50.6%. This result is comparable
to the findings on an Abies forest in the United King-
dom, for which the average rainfall interception was
48% (Rutter et al. 1975). Similarly, our results for
the Pinus hartwegii forest, where we report 23%
average rainfall interception, match those of Flores
Ayala et al. (2016), where 19.2% rainfall interception
was reported. Results from this study are also similar
to the results of previous studies where different
methods were used on similar species (see Appendix).
However, a direct comparison cannot be made
because the tree species are different between the
studies. The results of the rainfall interception
were comparable results obtained from other studies
that have used different methods to measure this
parameter.
Sites 2 and 3 have mixed forests that contain
aciculate leaves and broadleaf species; however,
despite having similar arboreal species, precipitation
at these sites is not the same. This may be
explained by altitude. Site 3 is located 667 m lower
than Site 2, and this elevation difference causes dif-
ferent patterns in precipitation and Co. This infor-
mation is relevant for understanding forest ecology,
the influence of several forest species and altitudi-
nal differences in the area and their effect on the
rainfall interception process.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
METHODS: A CASE STUDY IN TEMPERATE FORESTS IN OAXACA, MEXICO
Coefficient V3 (SE) R2 N
(0.245) 0.690 (0.266) 0.865 227
(0.078) 0.321 (0.075) 0.788 336
(0.157) 0.667 (0.216) 0.444 308
(0.063) 0.008 (0.010) 0.7888 246
As the intensity of precipitation increases, the
interception of rain is reduced, even if the site has
similar forest species. This may be because water
falls through a canopy more quickly, allowing less
retention than during weak precipitation events. This
may cause the canopy to retain more water and pro-
duce less runoff. It is important to note the impor-
tance of the forest canopy in controlling soil erosion
and other hazards. The forest canopy helps retain
precipitation, preventing water from falling directly
onto the soil and saturating it and thus reducing the
chance of landslides. This scenario highlights the
importance of the relationship between canopy cover
and altitude. This information is relevant for under-
standing forest ecology, the influence of several forest
species in an area, and their effect on the rainfall
interception process.
Interception process at each site were controlled by
four primary factors: Gp, Np, Co, and Th. The first
two aspects were influenced by physical factors such
as altitude, and the last two were affected by forest
type and seasonality. Although the sample sites have
similar type of vegetation and the rain gauges were
all located with an average distance of 40 m between
them at each site, the forest canopy showed differ-
ences in openness, leading to greater Th and precipi-
tation and therefore a decrease in rainfall
interception. The rainfall interception process may
also be influenced by changes in temperature that
occur inside and outside a forest canopy (Bonan
2008). A microclimate is probably generated under a
canopy, which makes evaporation different from sites
without a canopy (Davies-Colley et al. 2000). Simple
variables, such as Nt and Gp, which are easy to
obtain, demonstrate the importance of the forest
canopy in controlling the rainfall interception pro-
cess.
Although it would be ideal to base the estimates of
rainfall interception on much more comprehensive
models such as those suggested by Rutter et al.
(1971) and Gash (1979), it is often not possible to
obtain the variables needed for such models for a
number of reasons: accessibility, time, funding, secu-
rity, and logistics. In this study, a methodology to
obtain the percentage of rainfall interception for
9 JAWRA
 FERNANDEZ

AND TREJO

different types of forests in an accessible way was generated from the network of rain gauges and hemi-
presented. using values of Np and Gp, Co and Th that spherical photographs is easy to replicate in other
were obtained indirectly. Although from a theoretical areas and can serve as a check for other rigorous
standpoint, this model may be considered less rigor- models. Using the proposed methodology to measure
ous when compared to the Gash (1979) and Rutter interception will provide better knowledge of ecologi-
et al. (1971) models, the results are similar to those cal resources and their influence on the environment
of other studies which adds confidence to the pro- and greatly aid natural resource management in data
posed methodology. For example, Abies forests (50%), scarce regions of the world.
mixed forests (23%–40%), and broad-leaved forests
(27.4%) showed similar values to many studies in the
literature (see Appendix).
A rain gauge network provides a reliable system to APPENDIX
obtain Gp and Np inside and outside of the canopy.
TABLE A1. Rainfall interception for different study sites and vege-
The use of these variables was useful for the method
tation. Own elaboration.
presented in this study to compute rainfall intercep-
tion. However, the estimates of rainfall interception Interception
obtained using the proposed method can be further Vegetation Location (%) Author(s) (year)
reinforced by measuring other variables, such as
Pinus pinea France 27.6 Rapp and Romane
evapotranspiration and cortical runoff which provide (1968)
a complete picture of the interception process. Hemi- Quercus ilex France 31.3 Ettehad et al.
spheric photographs are an easy and effective method (1973)
for calculating the opening of forest canopies. These Pinus nigra United 35.3 Rutter et al.
photographs are easy to interpret using freely avail- Kingdom (1975)
Pseudotsuga United 39 Rutter et al.
able software and provide a cost-effective method that menziesii Kingdom (1975)
can be used to evaluate rain interception for different Abies United 48 Rutter et al.
types of forest, as well as to identify gaps where rain Kingdom (1975)
does not fall through the canopy and to the ground. Quercus robur United 18 Rutter et al.
Regarding the intensity–interception relationship, Kingdom (1975)
Pinus strobus Germany 32 Schr€oder (1985)
the results of the study suggest that the decrease in Rain forest Colombia 18.2 Veneklaas and
rainfall interception at Sites 1, 2, and 4 was related Van Ek (1990)
to the intensity of the rainfall events (Shachnovich Pinus radiata Australia 26.5 Pook et al. (1991)
et al. 2008). This means that if precipitation is Pinus sylvestris Spain 24 Llorens et al.
strong, then the water penetrates directly through (1997)
Pinus Mexico 19.2 Cant
u and
the forest canopy, and if the PI is weak, then the pseudrostrobus Gonz
alez
water is trapped in the canopy. This finding likely Rodr
ıguez (2002)
occurs because the Nt affects the interception process Quercus sp. Mexico 13.6 Cant
u and
due to the presence of microclimates under the forest Gonz
alez
canopy. These microclimates can be affected by the Rodr
ıguez (2002)
Matorral Mexico 8.2 Carlyle-Moses
amount of foliage, slope orientation, height above sea subinerme (2004)
level, or seasonality. Acacia Mexico 18 Cant
u Silva and
The proposed method is sensitive to the amount of berlandieri Gonz
alez
data that is available at the site. For example, Site 3 Rodr
ıguez (2005)
had a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.44 in rain- Acacia ridigula Mexico 15 Cant
u Silva and
Gonz
alez
fall interception and PI. This low value may partly be Rodr
ıguez (2005)
explained by the inadequate amount of data acquired Diospyros texana Mexico 22 Cant
u Silva and
during a month in the rainy season, indicating the Gonz
alez
importance of adequate amounts of data to apply the Rodr
ıguez (2005)
methodology presented here. Pinus Mexico 15.8 Carlyle-Moses and
pseudostrobus, Price (2007)
The proposed methodology may be useful for deci- Q. canbyi, Q
sion makers in the fields of forestry, ecology, hydrol- laeta
ogy, and soil management because information about Quercus robur United 29 Herbst et al.
the amount and intensity of precipitation that is Kingdom (2008)
trapped in a forest canopy can be used in different Abies religiosa Mexico 26.1 Flores Ayala et al.
(2016)
types of studies, such as those focused on landslides, Pinus hartwegii Mexico 19.2 Flores Ayala et al.
water balance modeling, infiltration, and physical–bi- (2016)
ological processes in forest canopies. The information

JAWRA 10 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

 RAINFALL INTERCEPTION BASED ON INDIRECT METHODS: A CASE STUDY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study is part of the “Social and environmental susceptibil-
ity to extreme events and climatic change in the Papaloapan high
basin, Oaxaca” project, which was financed by the Research and
Technological Innovation Project Support Program (PAPIIT-
UNAM), project number: IN300312 and IN301118. To National
Council of Science and Technology (CONACyT), for the economic
scholarship granted to carry out the doctoral studies in Geography.
We thank the authorities of the municipality of Santa Mar
ıa
Yaves
ıa, Oaxaca, for their support and facilities provided to this
project. We also thank the Laboratory of Instrumentation of the
Institute of Atmospheric Sciences from the National Autonomous
University of Mexico (CCA-UNAM) for specific adaptations of the
rain gauges for this study, especially to engineers Manuel Garc
ıa
and Wilfrido Guti
errez. Finally, we thank Adriana Caballero for
her valuable help.
LITERATURE CITED
Agassi, M., and G.J. Levy. 1991. “Stone Cover and Rain Intensity
— Effects on Infiltration, Erosion and Water Splash.” Soil
Research 29: 565–75. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR9910565.
Bonan, G.B. 2008. “Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feed-
backs, and the Climate Benefits of Forests.” Science 320 (5882):
1444–49. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155121.
Br

eda, N.J.J. 2003. “Ground-Based Measurements of Leaf Area
Index: A Review of Methods, Instruments and Current Contro-
versies.” Journal of Experimental Botany 54 (392): 2403–17.
Calder, I.R. 1998. “Water Use by Forests, Limits and Controls.”
Tree Physiology 18: 625–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/18.
8-9.625.
Cant
u, I., and H. Gonz
alez Rodr
ıguez. 2002. Propiedades hidrol
ogi-
cas del dosel de los bosques de pino- encino en el noreste de
M
exico (Volume 1). M
exico: Facultad de Ciencias Forestales
UANL.
Cant
u Silva, I., and H. Gonz
alez Rodr
ıguez. 2005. “P
erdidas por
intercepci
on de la lluvia en tres especies de matorral submon-
tano.” Ciencia UANL 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.29298/rmcf.v9i49.
178.
Carlyle-Moses, D.E. 2004. “Throughfall, Stemflow, and Canopy
Interception Loss Fluxes in a Semi-Arid Sierra Madre Oriental
Matorral Community.” Journal of Arid Environments 58 (2):
181–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1963(03)00125-3.
Carlyle-Moses, D.E., and A.G. Price. 2007. “Modelling Canopy
Interception Loss from a Madrean Pine-Oak Stand, Northeast-
ern M
exico.” Hydrological Processes 21 (19): 2572–80. https://
doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6790.
Chianucci, F., and A. Cutini. 2012. “Digital Hemispherical Photog-
raphy for Estimating Forest Canopy Properties: Current Contro-
versies and Opportunities.” iForest — Biogeosciences and
Forestry 5 (6): 290–95. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor0775-005.
Davies-Colley, R.J., G.W. Payne, and M. Van Elswijk. 2000. “Micro-
climate Gradients across a Forest Edge.” New Zeeland Journal
of Ecology 24: 111–21.
DAVIS Instruments. 2005. Davis Vantage Pro Console Manual.
Hayward: DAVIS Instruments.
Dawson, T.E., and K.A. Simonin. 2011. “The Roles of Stable Iso-
topes in Forest Hydrology and Biogeochemistry.” In Forest
Hydrology and Biogeochemistry, edited by D.F. Levia, D. Car-
lyle-Moses, and T. Tanaka, 137–61. Dordrecht: Springer. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1363-5_7.
Ettehad, R., P. Lossaint, and M. Rapp. 1973. “Recherches sur la
dynamique et le bilan de l’eau des sols de deux
ecosystemes
m
editerran
 ch^
eens a ene vert.” In Nouveaux Documents pour une
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
IN TEMPERATE FORESTS IN OAXACA, MEXICO
Etude Integree en Ecologie du Sol, edited by Y.R. Dommergues,
J. Balandreau, and F. Toutain, 195–288. Paris: CNRS.
Flores Ayala, E., V. Guerra De la Cruz, G.H. Terrazas Gonz
alez, F.
Carrillo Anzures, F. Islas Guti
errez, M. Acosta Mireles, and E.
Buend
ıa Rodr
ıguez. 2016. “Intercepci
on de lluvia en bosques de
monta~ na en la cuenca del r
ıo Texcoco, M
exico.” Revista mexi-
cana de ciencias forestales 7 (37): 65–76.
Frazer, G.W., C.D. Canham, and K.P. Lertzman. 1999. Gap Light
Analyzer (GLA), Version 2.0: Imaging Software to Extract
Canopy Structure and Gap Light Transmission Indices from
True-Colour Fisheye Photographs, User’s Manual and Program
Documentation. Burnaby, BC; Millbrook, NY: Simon Fraser
University; Institute of Ecosystem Studies.
Gash, J.H.C. 1979. “An Analytical Model of Rainfall Interception
by Forests.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Soci-
ety 105 (443): 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49710544304.
Gash, J.H.C., C.R. Lloyd, and G. Lachaud. 1995. “Estimating
Sparse Rainfall Interception with an Analytical Model.” Journal
of Hydrology 170 (95): 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694
(95)02697-N.
Gerrits, A.M.J., L. Pfister, and H.H.G. Savenije. 2010. “Spatial and
Temporal Variability of Canopy and Forest Floor Interception in
a Beech Forest.” Hydrological Processes 24 (21): 3011–25.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7712.
Guevara-Escobar, A., E. Gonz
alez-Sosa, C. V
eliz-Ch
avez, E. Ventura-
Ramos, and M. Ramos-Salinas. 2007. “Rainfall Interception and
Distribution Patterns of Gross Precipitation Around an Isolated
Ficus Benjamina Tree in an Urban Area.” Journal of Hydrology
333 (2–4): 532–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.09.017.
Herbst, M., P.T.W. Rosier, M.D. Morecroft, and D.J. Gowing. 2008.
“Comparative Measurements of Transpiration and Canopy Con-
ductance in Two Mixed Deciduous Woodlands Differing in
Structure and Species Composition.” Tree Physiology 28 (6):
959–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/28.6.959.
INEGI. 2005. Prontuario de informaci
on geogr
afica municipal de
los Estados Unidos Mexicanos|Santa Mar
ıa Yavesia, Oaxaca.
Aguascalientes, Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Estad
ıstica y
Geograf
ıa.
INEGI. 2010. Conteo de poblaci
on y vivienda. Aguascalientes, Mex-
ico: Instituto Nacional de Estad
ıstica y Geograf
ıa.
Jarcuska, B., S. Kucbel, and P. Jaloviar. 2010. “Comparison of Out-
put Results from Two Programmes for Hemispherical image
Analysis: Gap Light Analyser and WinScanopy.” Journal of For-
est Science 56 (4): 147–53. https://doi.org/10.17221/76/2009-JFS.
Jarraud, M. 2008. Guide to Meteorological Instruments and Meth-
ods of Observation (WMO-No. 8). Geneva, Switzerland: World
Meteorological Organization.
Jeong, S.J., C.H. Ho, H.J. Gim, and M.E. Brown. 2011. “Phenology
Shifts at Start vs. End of Growing Season in Temperate Vegeta-
tion over the Northern Hemisphere for the Period 1982–2008.”
Global Change Biology 17 (7): 2385–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1365-2486.2011.02397.x.
Levia, D.F., D. Carlyle-Moses, and T. Tanaka. 2011. Forest hydrol-
ogy and biogeochemistry: Synthesis of past research and future
directions. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-
007-1363-5
Limousin, J.M., S. Rambal, J.M. Ourcival, and R. Joffre. 2008.
“Modelling Rainfall Interception in a Mediterranean Quercus
Ilex Ecosystem: Lesson from a Throughfall Exclusion Experi-
ment.” Journal of Hydrology 357 (1–2): 57–66. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jhydrol.2008.05.001.
Link, T.E., M. Unsworth, and D. Marks. 2004. “The Dynamics of
Rainfall Interception by a Seasonal Temperate Rainforest.”
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 124 (3–4): 171–91. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2004.01.010.
Llorens, P., and F. Gallart. 2000. “A Simplified Method for
Forest Water Storage Capacity Measurement.” Journal of
11 JAWRA
 FERNANDEZ

AND
Hydrology 240 (1–2): 131–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694
(00)00339-5.
Llorens, P., R. Poch, J. Latron, and F. Gallart. 1997. “Rainfall
Interception by a Pinus Sylvestris Forest Patch Overgrown in a
Mediterranean Mountainous Abandoned Area I. Monitoring
Design and Results Down to the Event Scale.” Journal of
hydrology 199 (3–4): 331–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694
(96)03334-3.
L

opez, M.A. 2002. “Sobre interceptaci
on, trascolaci
on y escur-
riemiento cortical en el ciclo hidrol
ogico.” Cuaderno Sociedad
~
Espanola de Ciencias Forestales 13 (66): 55–66. https://doi.org/
10.31167/csef.v0i13.9274.
Miralles, D.G., J.H. Gash, T.R. Holmes, R.A. de Jeu, and A.J. Dol-
man. 2010. “Global Canopy Interception from Satellite Observa-
tions.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 115 (D16).
https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013530.
Moncho, R., F. Belda, and V. Caselles. 2009. “Climatic Study of the
Exponent “n” in IDF Curves: Application for the Iberian Penin-
sula.” Tethys, Journal of Weather and Climate of the Western
Mediterranean 1: 3–14. https://doi.org/10.3369/tethys.2009.6.01.
Monjo, R. 2010. El
ındice n de la precipitaci
on intensa. Departa-
mento de F
ısica de la Tierra Termodin
amica, Universidad de
Valencia, Fundaci
on para la Investigaci
on del Clima, Valencia.
Morgan, R.P.C. 2009. Soil erosion and conservation. Hoboken: John
Wiley & Sons.
Nobel, P.S., and I.N. Forseth. 1993. “Canopy Structure and Light
Interception.” In Photosynthesis and Production in a Changing
Environment, edited by D.O. Hall, J.M.O. Scurlock, H.R. Bol-
har-Nordenkampf, R.C. Leegood, and S.P. Long, 79–90. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1566-7_6.
Norman, J.M., and G.S. Campbell. 1989a. The Description and
Measurement of Plant Canopy Structure (Volume 31). Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511752308.002.
Norman, J.M., and G.S. Campbell. 1989b. “Canopy Structure.”In
Plant Physiological Ecology, 301–25. Dordrecht: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2221-1_14.
Pook, E.W., P.H.R. Moore, and T. Hall. 1991. “Rainfall Interception
by Trees of Pinus radiata, and Eucalyptus viminalis, in a 1300
mm Rainfall Area of Southeastern New South Wales: I. Gross
Losses and Their Variability.” Hydrological Processes 5 (2): 127–
41. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360050202.
Promis, A., and G. Cruz. 2009. “Fotograf
ıas Hemisf
ericas: un
m
etodo para estimar estructuras del dosel arb
oreo e iluminaci
on
en el interior del bosque.” Bosque Nativo 44: 12–15.
Pypker, T.G., B.J. Bond, T.E. Link, D. Marks, and M.H. Unsworth.
2005. “The Importance of Canopy Structure in Controlling the
Interception Loss of Rainfall: Examples from a Young and an
JAWRA 12
View publication stats
TREJO
Old-Growth Douglas-Fir Forest.” Agricultural and forest Meteo-
rology 130 (1–2): 113–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.
2005.03.003.
Rapp, M., and F. Romane. 1968. “Contribution a l’
etude du bilan de
l’eau dans les
ecosystemes m
editerran
eens. I. Egouttement des
pr
ecipitations sous des peuplements de Quercus ilex L. et de
Pinus halepensis.” Oecologia Plantarum 3: 271–84.
Rich, P.M. 1990. “Characterizing Plant Canopies with Hemispheri-
cal Photographs.” Remote Sensing Reviews 5 (1): 13–29. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02757259009532119.
Roth, B.E., K.C. Slatton, and M.J. Cohen. 2007. “On the Potential
for High-Resolution Lidar to Improve Rainfall Interception Esti-
mates in Forest Ecosystems.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Envi-
ronment 5 (8): 421–28. https://doi.org/10.1890/060119.1.
Rutter, A.J., K.A. Kershaw, P.C. Robins, and A.J. Morton. 1971. “A
Predictive Model of Rainfall Interception in Forests, 1. Deriva-
tion of the MODEL from Observations in a Plantation of Corsi-
can Pine.” Agricultural Meteorology 9: 367–84. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0002-1571(71)90034-3.
Rutter, A.J., A.J. Morton, and P.C. Robins. 1975. “A Predictive
Model of Rainfall Interception in Forests. II. Generalization of
the Model and Comparison with Observations in Some Conifer-
ous and Hardwood Stands.” Journal of Applied Ecology 12 (1):
367–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/2401739.
Schr€oder, M. 1985. “Annual Values of Forest Evaporation and Its
Partial Sizes at the Large-Scale Lysimeter Plant.” St. Arnold
DGM 29 (3): 95–98.
Shachnovich, Y., P.R. Berliner, and P. Bar. 2008. “Rainfall Inter-
ception and Spatial Distribution of Throughfall in a Pine Forest
Planted in an Arid Zone.” Journal of Hydrology 349 (1–2): 168–
77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.10.051.
StataCorp. 2011. Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College
Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
Trinh, D.H., and T.F.M. Chui. 2013. “An Empirical Method for
Approximating Canopy Throughfall.” Hydrological Processes 27
(12): 1764–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9332.
Veneklaas, E.J., and R. Van Ek. 1990. “Rainfall Interception in
Two Tropical Montane Rain Forests, Colombia.” Hydrological
processes 4 (4): 311–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360040403.
Welles, J.M., and S. Cohen. 1996. “Canopy Structure Measurement
by Gap Fraction Analysis Using Commercial Instrumentation.”
Journal of Experimental Botany 47 (9): 1335–1342. https://doi.
org/10.1093/jxb/47.9.1335.
Zhang, L., W.R. Dawes, and G.R. Walker. 1999. “Catchment
Hydrology Predicting the Effect of Vegetation Changes on
Catchment Average Water Balance.” Hydrology, Catchment
Report, Technical. Coopera Tive Research Centre for Catchment
Hydrology. Technical Report, p.99/12, p. 42.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION